Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb’s Empirical Analysis
331 U.S. 722 · 1947
Citation profile
492 federal appellate · 160 district · 69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,372 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden (1992), Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington (1986)
492 federal appellate · 160 district · 69 state decisions — followed in 17 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedWalling v. Rutherford Food Corp. (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Darby · National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. · Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel · United States v. Silk
Cited together with United States v. Silk · Goldberg v. Whitaker House Cooperative, Inc. · Bartels v. Birmingham · United States v. Rosenwasser · Walling v. US
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1,372 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“upon the circumstances of the whole activity.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee....”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether [the garment manufactur-eras premises and equipment were used for the plaintiffs’ work; (2) whether the Contractor Corporations had a business that could or did shift as a unit from one putative joint employer to another; (3) the extent to which plaintiffs performed a discrete line-job that was integral to [the garment manufacturer's process of production; (4) whether responsibility under the contracts could pass from one subcontractor to another without material changes; (5) the degree to which the [garment manufacturer] or [its] agents supervised plaintiffs’ work; and (6) whether plaintiffs worked exclusively or predominantly for [the garment manufacturer].”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.